California Hits the Brakes on High-Speed Rail Fiasco

[Spike]

Ha ha - and they wondered why FL rejected Obama's boondoggle money



California's high-speed rail project increasingly looks like an expensive social science experiment to test just how long interest groups can keep money flowing to a doomed endeavor before elected officials finally decide to cancel it.

What combination of sweet-sounding scenarios, streamlined mockups, ever-changing and mind-numbing technical detail, and audacious spin will keep the dream alive?

Sold to the public in 2008 as a visionary plan to whisk riders along at 220 miles an hour, making the trip from San Francisco to Los Angeles in a little over two and a half hours, the project promised to attract most of the necessary billions from private investors, to operate without ongoing subsidies and to charge fares low enough to make it competitive with cheap flights. With those assurances, 53.7 percent of voters said yes to a $9.95 billion bond referendum to get the project started. But the assurances were at best wishful thinking, at worst an elaborate con.

The total construction cost estimate has now more than doubled to $68 billion from the original $33 billion, despite trims in the routes planned. The first, easiest-to-build, segment of the system -- the “train to nowhere” through a relatively empty stretch of the Central Valley -- is running at least four years behind schedule and still hasn’t acquired all the needed land.

Predicted ticket prices to travel from LA to the Bay have shot from $50 to more than $80. State funding is running short. Last month’s cap-and-trade auction for greenhouse gases, expected to provide $150 million for the train, yielded a mere $2.5 million. And no investors are lining up to fill the $43 billion construction-budget gap.

Now, courtesy of Los Angeles Times reporter Ralph Vartabedian, comes yet another damning revelation: When the Spanish construction company Ferrovial submitted its winning bid for a 22-mile segment, the proposal included a clear and inconvenient warning: “More than likely, the California high speed rail will require large government subsidies for years to come.” Ferrovial reviewed 111 similar systems around the world and found only three that cover their operating costs.

http://www.bloomberg.com/view/artic...nia-hits-the-brakes-on-high-speed-rail-fiasco

----------------------------------------

Passenger choo-choo's are OK I guess for mega density cities in places like Japan and China, but we already have high-speed travel...called Airplanes.

 

[ark steel]

But the assurances were at best wishful thinking, at worst an elaborate con.

I'll take "Elaborate Con" for $200, Alex.

I'm assuming a bunch of money was already spent on consulting/environmental/design work? Be interesting to see who they are related to. Also interesting that the contract was given to a Spanish company rather than an American one...

 

[Steeltime]

I have a significant amount of information on this asinine, idiotic, bloated, government-whorehouse, thieving boondoggle that is this stupid train goat-**** of an idea.

This rail idea was the stupidest ******* idea ever, for the dumbest legislature ever to gather. And that is saying a lot.

First, the ******* rail project proposed spending 40 billion - that's with "B" people - dollars for a rail line through central California, to connect Los Angles, Sacramento and the Bay Area.

I have driven through Central California dozens of times. You know what is in Central California? Dead almond trees, due to the ******* Delta smelt, dead apricot trees, again due to the ******* worthless minnow, dirt, dairy farms, more dirt, cows, chickens, more dirt, more cows, lettuce crops, and more dirt.

Do you know how many people would ride a train to Central California? Yep, NOBODY, ZERO, NONE, ZIP. Wanna know why? BECAUSE THERE IS NOTHING TO SEE OR DO IN CENTRAL ******* CALIFORNIA AND NO REASON TO TRAVEL THERE.

"But, but, but ... what about the train from LA to San Francisco or Sacramento?"

It costs 59 ******* dollars to fly from LAX or Burbank on Southwest to either Sacramento or the Bay Area. Flying is faster, cheaper, and with vastly more departure and arrival times than the idiotic boondoggle train - and WOULD NOT COST A ******* NICKEL IN TAXPAYER MONEY and in fact generates tax REVENUE.

This asinine, idiotic, absurd, despicable train idea will cost Californians billions in taxes over the next 20 years.

You know what? I don't ******* care. Mrs. Steeltime and I are retiring pretty soon and moving out of the state. California can tax itself back into the middle ******* ages for all I care.

And Jerry Brown can suck my **** if he wants a nickel from me to pay for that ****** train.

 

[ark steel]

I have a significant amount of information on this asinine, idiotic, bloated, government-whorehouse, thieving boondoggle that is this stupid train goat-**** of an idea.

This rail idea was the stupidest ******* idea ever, for the dumbest legislature ever to gather. And that is saying a lot.

First, the ******* rail project proposed spending 40 billion - that's with "B" people - dollars for a rail line through central California, to connect Los Angles, Sacramento and the Bay Area.

I have driven through Central California dozens of times. You know what is in Central California? Dead almond trees, due to the ******* Delta smelt, dead apricot trees, again due to the ******* worthless minnow, dirt, dairy farms, more dirt, cows, chickens, more dirt, more cows, lettuce crops, and more dirt.

Do you know how many people would ride a train to Central California? Yep, NOBODY, ZERO, NONE, ZIP. Wanna know why? BECAUSE THERE IS NOTHING TO SEE OR DO IN CENTRAL ******* CALIFORNIA AND NO REASON TO TRAVEL THERE.

"But, but, but ... what about the train from LA to San Francisco or Sacramento?"

It costs 59 ******* dollars to fly from LAX or Burbank on Southwest to either Sacramento or the Bay Area. Flying is faster, cheaper, and with vastly more departure and arrival times than the idiotic boondoggle train - and WOULD NOT COST A ******* NICKEL IN TAXPAYER MONEY and in fact generates tax REVENUE.

This asinine, idiotic, absurd, despicable train idea will cost Californians billions in taxes over the next 20 years.

You know what? I don't ******* care. Mrs. Steeltime and I are retiring pretty soon and moving out of the state. California can tax itself back into the middle ******* ages for all I care.

And Jerry Brown can suck my **** if he wants a nickel from me to pay for that ****** train.

Racist..... Probably just hate him because his last name is Brown.

 

[madinsomniac]

I was always in favor of the high speed rail system between major cities if the tech ever droped to a manageable cost, but its pretty much unfeasible to do it cost effective in the here and now

 

[Omar10213245]

I was always in favor of the high speed rail system between major cities if the tech ever droped to a manageable cost, but its pretty much unfeasible to do it cost effective in the here and now

why you "here&now-aphobe", you!

 

[ark steel]

I was always in favor of the high speed rail system between major cities if the tech ever droped to a manageable cost, but its pretty much unfeasible to do it cost effective in the here and now

Even if the tech was affordable, huge government contracts turn into Boondoggle. Just kowtowing to the environmentalists is expensive.

 

[hamster]

Does anyone still wonder how an elected official becomes wealthy on a civil service income?

 

[Ron Burgundy]

Even if the tech was affordable, huge government contracts turn into Boondoggle. Just kowtowing to the environmentalists is expensive.

if high speed rail interfered with the delta smelt or some squirrel, whose side would the Greenies take?

 

[tapeANaspirin2it]

If they extend the line down to Mexico, they would double the budget

 

[DBS1970]

The problem will be that even with subsidies it will be cheaper to drive and when you get there you will have your car to get around with. Bad idea from the jump.

 

[deljzc]

How soon can California secede?

You think they suck money now, wait until a big earthquake happens.... That will make the bailout after Hurricane Sandy look like giving you kids a $5 allowance.

 

[POP]

I'll take "Elaborate Con" for $200, Alex.

I'm assuming a bunch of money was already spent on consulting/environmental/design work? Be interesting to see who they are related to. Also interesting that the contract was given to a Spanish company rather than an American one...

Wasn't Feinstein and her hubby in on grubbing cash out of this?

 

[POP]

I was always in favor of the high speed rail system between major cities if the tech ever droped to a manageable cost, but its pretty much unfeasible to do it cost effective in the here and now

Big oil made sure the US would never have a quality rail system. Ever look at ticket prices for travelling my train? As much as flying. The Rockefellers and their ilk made sure rail would fail.

In other countries where it wasn't blackballed, it did great.

 

[Ron Burgundy]

Ever look at ticket prices for travelling my train? As much as flying.

Pffft, try double or triple. Passenger rail did fine in this country until air travel became more widely available and affordable in the 1960's. Also at that time the passenger RR's were privately owned by the freight RR's, with the freight side subsidizing the passenger side. Amtrak runs all passenger rail but they do not own the track, they have to pay the freight RR's for the right to use the track. Also then the freight RR's take priority so if there are delays then it is the Amtrak trains that wait. This is why their on-time record is pretty bad. We take Amtrak's Auto Train to FL and back fairly often. I was told all that by an Amtrak employee.

The Rockefellers and their ilk made sure rail would fail.

In other countries where it wasn't blackballed, it did great.

Not really, it's more a matter that other countries subsidize their rail and mass transit. This is why gas costs $8 a gallon in Europe, the taxes on gas go to subsidize rail and mass transit. We subsidize Amtrak but not to the extent that Europe does. Also Europe (been there) is laid out a little differently than the U.S. and mass transit is more practical.

My sleeve is partly covering it, but note that I am wearing a Steelers sweater also.

 

[tapeANaspirin2it]

We should cut California in half and just give the southern half to Mexico. It would solve so many problems.

 

[Steeltime]

We should cut California in half and just give the southern half to Mexico. It would solve so many problems.

No, what would happen is that Mexico would take over some of the best farmland and most beautiful homes on the planet, **** it up in a matter of a couple of years due to Mexico's inherently corrupt and incompetent government, turn Southern California into a ghetto, and then have its citizens spending their time walking into Northern California by the millions since the desert is no longer an ersatz barrier to illegal immigration.

 

[tapeANaspirin2it]

No, what would happen is that Mexico would take over some of the best farmland and most beautiful homes on the planet, **** it up in a matter of a couple of years due to Mexico's inherently corrupt and incompetent government, turn Southern California into a ghetto, and then have its citizens spending their time walking into Northern California by the millions since the desert is no longer an ersatz barrier to illegal immigration.

so what's the downside? Most southern californians hate America anyway. Let them see how Mexico does as their new landlords.

Besides, it would be comedy gold to see all the good liberals, who are first to call anybody racist for wanting a legal immigration system, all of a sudden deciding that they always dreamed of living in Oregon once it's their neighborhood that gets overrun.

Rich farmland? Great, let Mexico take over and pay their farm workers a fraction of what they made previously. Maybe the price of several crops would actually decrease.

Best of all, Cali's electoral votes would get cut in half

 

[Steeltime]

so what's the downside? Most Southern Californians hate America anyway.

Bullshit.

California is an amazing state. California elected Reagan to landslide wins in 1966 and 1970. California gave rise to the phrase, "This is Reagan country."

What happened is that the Democrats, behind Ted Kennedy (I hope the murdering **** enjoys hell), enacted a dramatic change on immigration since they saw that the Democrats were about to disappear with California and Texas solidly Republican.

Even when the immigration changes were being debated, some foresaw the disastrous consequences:

Among those who more accurately foresaw the future effects of the change in immigration law was a certain Myra C. Hacker, Vice President of the New Jersey Coalition, who testified at a Senate immigration subcommittee hearing:

"In light of our 5 percent unemployment rate, our worries over the so called population explosion, and our menacingly mounting welfare costs, are we prepared to embrace so great a horde of the world's unfortunates? At the very least, the hidden mathematics of the bill should be made clear to the public so that they may tell their Congressmen how they feel about providing jobs, schools, homes, security against want, citizen education, and a brotherly welcome ... for an indeterminately enormous number of aliens from underprivileged lands."

"We should remember that people accustomed to such marginal existence in their own land will tend to live fully here, to hoard our bounteous minimum wages and our humanitarian welfare handouts ... lower our wage and living standards, disrupt our cultural patterns ..."

"Whatever may be our benevolent intent toward many people, [the bill] fails to give due consideration to the economic needs, the cultural traditions, and the public sentiment of the citizens of the United States." (U.S. Senate, Subcommittee on Immigration and Naturalization of the Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, D.C., Feb. 10, 1965. pp. 681-687.)

The Democrats - notably Teddy and Bobby Kennedy - assured Congress that "The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs." (Booze-hound, murderer and general fat-*** liar Ted Kennedy, before the U.S. Senate, Subcommittee on Immigration and Naturalization of the Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, D.C., Feb. 10, 1965. pp. 1-3.)

Of course the Kennedys knew that the change to the immigration law would flood the country with the poor and uneducated from Mexico and Latin America. That was the point of the ******* bill, to rape and ruin California for electoral reasons.

Therefore, California is an amazing, wonderful state that was ******, raped, and ruined by politicians for their own ******* political gains.

Finally, guess where I was on Memorial Day? That's right, at a Memorial Day parade, along with thousands of others, flying the stars-and-stripes and celebrating America.

So please refrain from saying that "Southern Californians hate the United States." No, ************* in Washington, D.C. feared and hated my state and ruined it. I hope Ted Kennedy rises up as a zombie, so I can put a bullet between his eyes and **** on his corpse.

 

[deljzc]

lol... You don't like Ted Kennedy much do you....

 

[Steeltime]

lol... You don't like Ted Kennedy much do you....

I despise him for whoring my state - an extraordinary place - for his own personal political reasons. He is the worst of the worst for politicians. A bloated, fat, drunken murderer who thinks he is above the rules and is not bothered at flooding America's greatest state with the poorest and least educated immigrants on the planet, so he can sew up some electoral votes for his party.

I hope Hitler rapes him in hell every night.